Choose country

Are women genetically superior to men?

iStockphoto

Published: 28 July 2013 (GMT+10)

A number of modern myths about the genetics and development of the sexes—that the Y chromosome is ‘inferior’ to the X chromosome and that all babies start off female. CMI writers Dr Robert Carter, Dr Carl Wieland, and Lita Cosner help dispel these myths.

R.B. from the United States writes:

What is your response to the XY Chromosome argument that women are genetically superior to men in that they have two X chromosomes?

Pardon the boldness of my answer, but my response is simple: “Balderdash!”

Balderdash!

The line you are quoting comes straight out of the women’s lib movement and is not only full of invective against men, but is also full of scientific and ethnological nonsense. Back in the 70s, it was decided that the Y chromosome was a vestigial leftover, a shriveled up piece of garbage that was just hanging around in the human species. The appearance of the Y chromosome under a microscope helped that view (it is a bit crooked when condensed). Certain movers and shakers in the women’s liberation movement seized upon this and used the argument extensively to bolster their cause. What is amazing about this is that it flat out contradicts what the leading Darwinists taught for a hundred years (see The history of the teaching of human female inferiority in Darwinism), especially Darwin himself, who was quite convinced that women were evolutionarily inferior to men, and said so in print, with detailed arguments.

Today, however, we know the Y chromosome is a master control switch, affecting the expression of thousands of genes on all of the chromosomes.

Today, however, we know the Y chromosome is a master control switch, affecting the expression of thousands of genes on all of the chromosomes. And, its presence is profound, as there are major physical and psychological differences between men and women, no?

The Y chromosome is much less variable than the X. Why? From an evolutionary perspective, this is supposedly because men are better at having children with multiple women (polygamy, rape, mistresses, mid-life crises) than vice versa. Thus, the “effective population size” of men is smaller and, thus, superior Y chromosomes are more successful at propagating. One could argue that the higher reproductive variance among men has led to the evolution of superior Y chromosomes. Of course, I think this is nonsense.

One could also reverse the feminist argument: Because men have more genes than women (!), one could attempt to say it is women who are less evolved or genetically inferior. This is also nonsense.

From a Christian standpoint, neither men nor women are superior to the other. Rather, they were created for different roles (in a similar way that Jesus [the Son] and God [the Father] are equal but with different roles within the Trinity). I don’t want to get into an argument about God’s design for the role of men and women in the church or in society, and I have very strong opinions, but, in God’s eyes, we have equal “worth” and equal access to Heaven and the promises made in the New Testament for believers (Galatians 3:28).

Does science describe a human infant as first female in the womb, and later developing into male or female as the fetus grows? If so, is this contradictory to the biblical account of the origin of man and women, that women was taken from man?

Thanks for writing in. From fertilization, the new human being is genetically male (XY) or female (XX), disregarding a few exceedingly rare genetic anomalies (XXY, etc.). The embryo develops in the earliest stages in the same way regardless of the sex of the embryo, and the presence and amount of different hormones (notably testosterone) controls how the fetus develops. The notion of labeling it ‘female’ can only be defensible in the most trivial way, in that it ‘looks less male’, or put another way, the subsequent male development is a more drastic departure from the original ‘common start’ than the female. But since a male baby is exactly that from the very first, it cannot properly be called ‘female’—they just develop along the same pattern in the earliest stages, which is actually sound engineering design.

Incidentally, even if it was the other way around, we don’t see how it would contradict the order of their original creation, as that was a one-off event that is not necessarily going to be mimicked in the programming that controls human reproduction from then on. But of course that is now a moot point.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Not sure what this was intended to mean, even after reading it a couple of times.
Correction or clarification may help.
"Today, however, we know the Y chromosome is a master control switch, affecting the expression of thousands of genes on all of the chromosomes. And, its presence is profound, as there are major physical and psychological differences between men and women, no?"

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. As Rice and Friberg (2008) said in Science, "It is now well established that a large proportion of the genome is expressed at different levels in males and females in many organisms..." Any pattern of expression that sets up differently in males vs. females is ultimately traceable to the presence or absence of the Y chromosome. Thus, finding a "large proportion" of genes that express differentially in the two sexes indicates the "profound" effect of the Y chromosome. Or are you hesitating on my choice of grammar at the end of the quoted section. Let me rephrase: There are major physical and psychological differences between men and woman, right? (correct?, true?, no?)

I said nothing that does not comport with standard, orthodox, Christian theology that cuts across denominational divisions and across Christian history. If you need a detailed study of the Trinity, please begin with http://creation.com/jesus-christ-our-creator-a-biblical-defence-of-the-trinity.

There were various and sundry voices back in the day that have since faded into obscurity. It would not be worth making an attempt to look them up, but I would not be surprised if some of the more prominent voices today also held such views.

Regarding the non-impending death of the Y chromosome: Within animal life the male-female riddle has been solved in different ways. Different groups have different types of sex differentiation and not all use the X-Y strategy. To an evolutionist, this is proof that species can change over time in radical ways. Thus, they have no problem seeing humans change in the future. But this is begging the question. Looking at species in existence today might give you some ideas about what happened in the past, but this is not the same thing as demonstrating the change is actually possible. Selection thresholds, deleterious mutation rates, the complexity of the genome, the complexity of sexual reproduction and cell division, etc., etc., all argue against massive change, even slow change over massive amounts of time.

How can some say male genes are superior to female genes, or vice versa. The fact is that without the symbiotic male-female reproductive system there would no male/female children to grow up and have children. Moreover, if the genes of either male and/or female are biologically flawed, the reproductive process fails.

Yes, in a limited sense, males are at a disadvantage due to the fact that they only carry one X chromosome. But does that makes them genetically inferior to women? Not any more than having an extra chromosome (the Y) would make them genetically superior to women.

I find it highly amusing (from a hypocritical standpoint) that the proponents of the equality/sex/gender/diversity/multiculturalism agendas cannot see the contradictions from the herd of elephants in their own room.

To the modern equivalent of witchfinder generals who sieve every statement for some capital PC offence in order to burn someone in the public square. My position on race etc is that I am a member of the human race. To which race do you belong?

Feedback Guidelines

Links to external sites and articles will be removed from your submission.

Privacy & Content Ownership

Comments become the property of Creation Ministries International upon submission and may be edited for brevity and clarity.

CMI may choose not to publish your comment depending on how well it fits the guidelines outlined above.

By submitting your comment you are agreeing to receive email updates from Creation Ministries International. You may unsubscribe at any time.

CMI records your real name, email address, and country as a sign of good faith. Privacy Policy

If your comment is published, your name will be displayed as ""

Cancel

Accept & Continue

Close

You are leaving CREATION.com

We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.

Affiliated Sites

Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

CMI has offices in Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America.